> if what is detected is small enough for that there's no reason "treatment" can't just be monitoring it's size with follow-up scans.
This is false—it is exactly what the article is trying to convey. There is a risk to any test, and one of the major risks for imaging is getting treatment for things that would never cause symptoms or require intervention.
It is true. You need only trouble yourself to search. Here's a recent paper, for example: https://jamanetwork.com/journals/jamainternalmedicine/articl...
> if what is detected is small enough for that there's no reason "treatment" can't just be monitoring it's size with follow-up scans.
This is false—it is exactly what the article is trying to convey. There is a risk to any test, and one of the major risks for imaging is getting treatment for things that would never cause symptoms or require intervention.